A joint accident investigation into the loss of the tanker Sanchi and its crew of 32 following a collision with the bulker CF Crystal has drawn two different conclusions from the investigating countries.
The two ships collided in the East China Sea in January causing a massive explosion on the 164,000-dwt Sanchi (built 2007) which was carrying a cargo of condensate.
The accident claimed the lives of all the crew and the tanker eventually sank.
The CF Crystal was registered in Hong Kong and almost all the crew of the Panama registered Sanchi were Iranian with two from Bangladesh. Iran represented Panama and Bangladesh in the joint investigation with Hong Kong.
The two investigating countries agreed both vessels failed to comply with the collision prevention regulations (Colregs) by failing to keep a proper lookout and using all means available to determine if a risk of collision exists.
However, the Chinese investigators concluded that in the circumstances that led to the collision it identified the Sanchi as the give way vessel and the 75,000-dwt CF Crystal (built 2010) the stand on vessel.
It concluded: “As the give way vessel in a crossing situation Sanchi did not take actions to keep well clear of CF Crystal. This was the main causal factor of the collision.”
The risk of collision should have been recognised by Sanchi the first time it became aware of the approaching CF Crystal, the Chinese concluded.
“Since Sanchi had CF Crystal on her own starboard side and risk of collision existed in a crossing course since 1924 LT, she should have kept out of the way and should have, if the circumstances of the case admitted, avoided crossing ahead of the other vessel. But, Sanchi did not take actions as required.
"This was the main factor contributing to the collision,” China said.
However Iranian investigators came to a very different conclusion.
It said that it was the alteration of the CF Crystal’s course 15 minutes prior to the disaster that led to the collision and missed flashing signals given by the Sanchi.
The CF Crystal crew it said were not aware of the Sanchi until the time of the collision and was relying only on AIS for collision avoidance.
The difference of opinion is bound to add to the uncertainty surrounding the cause of the disaster and arguments around the financial liability for the loss among hull underwriters.
